They simply show that states that are considered "red" take in more welfare and pay less taxes. States that are "blue" have the inverse of that relationship. Now does this indicate that there are more people on welfare who are in fact republican? no, its an epidemiological enterprise and hence correlational in nature. What it does say is that states with more republicans have more welfare. It also shows that states with republican leaders are welfare queens in comparison to their blue counterparts.

Republicans have become anti-intellectual and more corrupt than ever.

In other words it doesn't prove your allegation that more Republicans than Democrats are on welfare. I also don't think the correlation is very useful. For example, it's possible that more Republicans than Democrats are on welfare in "blue states." Or that more Democrats than Republicans are on welfare in "red states." I doubt anyone actually keeps those statistics anyway.

In other words it doesn't prove your allegation that more Republicans than Democrats are on welfare. I also don't think the correlation is very useful. For example, it's possible that more Republicans than Democrats are on welfare in "blue states." Or that more Democrats than Republicans are on welfare in "red states." I doubt anyone actually keeps those statistics anyway.

I could be wrong, but I think the blue states are more densely populated. A denser population often equals a more robust economy, and a greater revenue base for the state.

That tells us a few things:

1) That those more adept at revving up a local economy are either dems, ...or smart enough to vote for dems.

2) No one wants to live amongst fools who would vote for the current batch of Republicans.

Quote

Why do you say Republicans are "anti-intellectual"?

Would you prefer he use the more politically-correct term "cerebrally challenged"?

I could be wrong, but I think the blue states are more densely populated. A denser population often equals a more robust economy, and a greater revenue base for the state.

That tells us a few things:

1) That those more adept at revving up a local economy are either dems, ...or smart enough to vote for dems.

2) No one wants to live amongst fools who would vote for the current batch of Republicans.

Would you prefer he use the more politically-correct term "cerebrally challenged"?

Yes, you are wrong. The most populous state in the country (California) is a "blue state" and it's broke, with an UE rate of 10 percent. Texas, the second most populous state in the country, is a "red state," has an UE rate under 7 percent, and has a budget surplus. New York, another "blue state," is the third most populous state in the country and has an UE rate that has been around 9 percent for a long time and has a budget deficit.

Yes, you are wrong. The most populous state in the country (California) is a "blue state" and it's broke, with an UE rate of 10 percent. Texas, the second most populous state in the country, is a "red state," has an UE rate under 7 percent, and has a budget surplus. New York, another "blue state," is the third most populous state in the country and has an UE rate that has been around 9 percent for a long time and has a budget deficit.

Actually, I was referring to population "density" not overall population numbers.But you may be right. That was just a hunch on my part and I based the model on Canadian demographics. I gotta keep reminding myself logic & common sense gets turned on it's head south of the 49th.

Actually, I was referring to population "density" not overall population numbers.But you may be right. That was just a hunch on my part and I based the model on Canadian demographics. I gotta keep reminding myself logic & common sense gets turned on it's head south of the 49th.

I see. And which states are more densely populated than California, Texas, and New York that support your theory?

I see. And which states are more densely populated than California, Texas, and New York that support your theory?

Like I said, I was referring to population "density", not overall population.

ie: alot of people squished into a small space. ie: a row of 50 story highrises in a quarter mile stretch of road, would be more densely populated that a quarter mile along a suburban street of single family homes, or a quarter mile stretch of farmland. More opprtunities to interact with others.

Again, was just a hunch. Not working off stats, just applying a Canadian demographic model to an American situation. Does not compute properly.